Re: electromagnetic-wave vs photon
- From: "Tim BandTech.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
On May 17, 10:22 am, Nimo <azeez...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi..,
well, is there any such thing in this real world
which has "zero mass", but exist "physically" :-)
well, if an electromagnetic wave was produced say
( for example radio wave ); if that wave is transmitted
from point A to point B;
How that wave is transmitted ?
Are photons are the carriers that wave ?
_________
greetings
nimo
Fifty years of intense reflection have not brought
me nearer to the answer of the question
=> ‘What are light quanta?’
Of course nowadays every little mind thinks he knows
the answer. But he is wrong.He said this a few years before
his death
Albert Einstein, 1951
I would like to add to this open problem of light the problem of heat,
for when heat is described as vibrating atoms there is a clear
conflict of interpretation. Consider a solid bar of material. We
strike it with a hammer at one end. These vibrations propagate very
rapidly throughout the bar. Heat on the other hand propagates
extremely slowly. Thus I argue that the rationalization of heat as
vibrating matter is insufficient. This then leaves open the
geometrical interpretation of heat. Maxwell was thoroughly absorbed in
the puzzle of heat as well as electromagnetism. See for instance
Maxwell's Demon.
Unfortunately these puzzles are making a large statement on human
consciousness and the way that we learn. I cannot refute all of
thermodynamics with this argument, but for that subject to claim some
form of completion on its arena cannot stand when such a simple
refutation at its base holds up. The underlying support for phonon
theory will bottom out at experimentally derived values on each
material studied. No linkage from acoustic vibration to thermal
vibration exists, yet these two are one geometrically. Instead the
subject splits into phonons and a bunch of other *onons at the
convenience of experiment under the guise of solid state physics.
Rather than being brought into one subject cleanly they are brought in
disparately with no regard for the simple refutation that I have
presented.
Could it be that a clean theory does exist? Isn't this why we study
these subjects? Why then is the open problem so obfuscated? Can we not
stand to admit that we don't know? Ego can operate en masse and the
alternative is like some biblical scene of people wandering around all
disoriented and confused and deeply troubled by their lack of
leadership. We should try to make peace with this state of things and
leave the problems open if for no other reason than to give the next
generation something more lively to work on than absorbing the web of
past work.
Heat as a geometrical problem suggest two possibilities to me:
1. Even in a crystalline solid some form of rotation is possible,
be it back and forth elastic rotational oscillations of atoms which
rub off on each other or even fully spinning steady state oscillation.
Either way this allows for a local energy which is not directly
translational and so allows for a slower means of propagation. If you
like a higgs force then this could even fit that model with a gentle
drag mechanism of distribution.
2. Additional dimensions. This frees up the geometrical problem of
operating heat and sound through the same mechanism but leaves a
spacetime conundrum. In polysign studies
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/index.html
we see natural support for spacetime with suggestive electromagnetic
possibilities in the natural progression
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ...
the bar being a breakpoint in distance behavior under product. Linkage
between heat and electromagnetic phenomena exist so the tie back to
your photon versus wave puzzle may find its resolution by trying to go
bigger rather than focusing down on the one wave/particle duality
problem of the photon. Somehow we need to think bigger. It's OK to go
for the whole kit and kabootle. That's unification. At least it's
worth a try and with enough people trying somebody is bound to make
some progress. Somehow the way that we've been presented the problem
is faulty. Your mind already has an underpinning to challenge existing
theory. Study existing theory, yes. Accept existing theory... No.
That's a religious form. The straight A's may not be the best people
here. If you have a problem with a subject maybe you should listen to
what your mind tells you. Follow it out rather than banish your
difficulty. What if the difficulty is valid? Then something important
got overlooked. I can prove that things have been overlooked. How many
of these things are there? Constructions remain to be considered. Just
as the greats construct things so should we. We should learn to
construct freely.
- Tim
.
- References:
- electromagnetic-wave vs photon
- From: Nimo
- electromagnetic-wave vs photon
- Prev by Date: Re: Charged spinning disks
- Next by Date: Re: Mechanics: Balance of a bike
- Previous by thread: Re: electromagnetic-wave vs photon
- Next by thread: how to prove that sound is a wave ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
